Conclusions
This chapter of two halves is designed to make two larger points about the Roman law of property. The first is to argue that more attention needs to be paid to the structure of this branch of law as presented in the Institutes of Gaius and ofJustinian.
When surveying the ‘evolving’ structure of the Roman law of property as presented by these two teaching manuals, more attention needs to be paid to the legal thought (logic, understanding of concepts and categories) which underpinned these structures. Roman legal thought is not modern legal thought, and the Romans had a unique way of looking at law which was informed by their own world view. The second point which this chapter seeks to make is that any account of the ‘development’ of Roman property law from the founding of Rome (ab urbe condita) to the publication of the Digest cannot be wholly internally focused. While until now much has been done to demonstrate how concepts evolved with time, such an internal narrative has become disassociated from the larger narrative surrounding the Roman Empire.99 This needs to be addressed. Property - specifically land - does not just have a legal dimension; it is rooted in the social, economic, and political narratives of the Romans and should be viewed from these perspectives as well.100Notes
1. See, e.g., J.A.C. Thomas, Textbook of Roman Law (Amsterdam, 1976), part III, chs. 10-15.
2. See T. Leesen, Gaius Meets Cicero: Law and Rhetoric in the School Controversies (Leiden, 2010) and D. Lehoux, What Did the Romans Know? An Inquiry into Science and Worldmaking (Chicago, 20I2).
3. See the excellent yet much underrated work by O.
Stanojevic, Gaius Noster — Plaidoyer pour Gaius (Amsterdam, 1989), chs. 3—5. On the person of Gaius, see also T. Honoré, Gaius (Oxford, 1962). On the text of Gaius see the recent work by F. Briguglio, Il Codice Veronese in trasparenza. Genesi eformazione del testo delle Istituzioni di Gaio (Bologna, 2012).4. Stanojevic (n. 3), ch. 8. Gaius’ teaching should be seen within the context of Roman legal education of the second century AD.
5. See the Prooemium to the Institutes (const. Imperatoriam Maiestatem).
6. E. Bocking, Gai Institutionum Commentarii Quattuor (Leipzig, 1855) [as augmented by Seckel and Kuebler].
7. See, e.g., the interesting work by R. Saller, Patriarchy, Property and Death in the Roman Family (Cambridge, I994).
8. The English translation is from W.M. Gordon and O. Robinson, The Institutes of Gaius (Ithaca, I988).
9. SeeM. Kaser, Römisches Privatrecht, 17th edn. byR. Knütel (Munich, 2003), § i8.I.2a. More generally, M. Crawford, ‘Aut sacrom aut poublicom’, in New Perspectives on the Roman law of Property, ed. P. Birks (Oxford, 1989), 93—98.
10. For an interesting discussion of the relationship between the Roman understanding of res incorporales and that of nineteenth-century German legal scholars, see G. Turelli, ‘ “Res incorporales” e beni immateriali: categorie affini, ma non congruenti’, Teoria e Storia del Diritto Privato (online journal: http://www.teoriaestoriadeldirittoprivato.com) 2012 (5): 1 —17.
11. On the summa divisio, see U.
Vincenti, Categorie del Diritto Romano, 2nd edn. (Naples, 2008), 96-99.12. On this secondary division, see Vincenti (n. 11), 99—112.
13. See C. Ando, The Matter of the Gods: Religion and the Roman Empire (Berkeley, 2008), 59—92.
14. See vol. i. of the Corpus iuris civilis (Berlin, 1954).
15. M. Kaser, Eigentum und Besitz im älteren römischen Recht, 2nd edn. (Cologne, i956) remains one of the most influential books on this topic.
16. Compare G. G. Archi, ‘Il concetto della proprietà nei diritti del mondo antico’, RIDA 6 (i959): 229style='font-family:"Arial",sans-serif'>—249. See, most recently, the thought-provoking book by P. Garnsey, Thinking about Property: From Antiquity to the Age of Revolution (Cambridge, 2007), esp. chs. i and 2.
17. For an anthropological comparison, see, e.g., M. Gluckman, Politics, Law and Ritual in Tribal Society (Oxford, i965), 36—38.
18. G. Diósdi, Ownership in Ancient and Preclassical Roman Law (Budapest, 1970), 37 and generally ch. 3; M. Kaser, ‘Über “relatives Eigentum” im altrömischen Recht’, ZSS 102 (1985): 1—39; L. Capogrossi Colognesi, ‘La proprietà in Roma dalla fine del sistema patriarcale alla fioritura dell’ordinamento schiavistico’, in La Terra in Roma antica: Forme di Proprietà e Rapporti Produttivi, ed. L. Capogrossi Colognesi (Rome, 1981), vol. 1, 135—169; Kaser (n.
9), § 22.II.1; L. Capogrossi Colognesi, ‘Per la storia della proprietà romana’, Labeo i8 (i972): 373—398.19. Diósdi (n. i8), 2i—26; Kaser (n. 9), § i8.I.3a.
20. H. F. Jolowicz and B. Nicholas, Historical Introduction to the Study of Roman Law, 3rd edn. (Cambridge, i972), pp. i37—i40.
lang=EN-US style='font-size:9.0pt'>21. Jolowicz and Nicholas (n. 20), i43—i49.
22. M. Varvaro, ‘Manu(m) conserere e omnibus verbis vindicare (Gellius 20.10.7)’, in Le Dodici Tavole: dai Decemviri agli Umanisti, ed. M. Humbert (Pavia, 2005), 267—309.
23. Diósdi (n. i8), 57, Vincenti (n. ii), ii2—i22.
24. Diósdi (n. i8), 75—8i.
25. Jolowicz and Nicholas (n. 20), i49—i5i.
26. Jolowicz and Nicholas (n. 20), i5i—i52; Kaser (n. 9), § 25.I.i—2.
27. Diósdi (n.
i8), 90.28. Diósdi (n. 18), 124. For a discussion of the different historical roots of possession in Roman law, see Kaser (n. 9), § i9.II.i.
29. Kaser (n. 9), § 28.I.i.
30. Diósdi (n. 18), 108; see also, more generally, R. Feenstra, "Dominium and ius in re aliena: The Origins of a Civil law Distinction’, in Birks (n. 9), 111—122.
31. Cf. the chapter by Metzger, 28i—3.
32. Diósdi (n. i8), i05—i06; Kaser (n. 9), § 27.I.
33. Gaius 4.i3.
34. See, extensively, C.A. Cannata, ‘ Qui prior vindicaverat: la posizione delle parti nella legis actio sacramento in rem, in Mélanges Felix Wubbe, ed. J. A. Ankum et al. (Fribourg, 1993), 83-96.
35. Gaius 4.17a; Kaser (n. 9), § 81.II.2.
36. Cf the chapter by Ibbetson, 26—7.
37. On Italy in the Republic, see K.
Lomas, ‘Italy during the Roman Republic: 338—331 BC’, in The Cambridge Companion to the Roman Republic, ed. H. Flower (Cambridge, 2004), 199—224.38. For an interesting example of how this was done, see J. S. Richardson, ‘The Tabula Contrebiensis: Roman Law in Spain in the Early First Century B.C.’, JRS 73 (1983): 33—41, and P. Birks, A. Rodger, and J. S. Richardson, ‘Further Aspects of the Tabula Contrebiensis’, JRS 74 (1984): 45—73.
39. See, generally, O. Dilke, The Roman Land Surveyors: An Introduction to the Agrimensores (Newton Abbot, 1971).
40. Cf. the chapter by Ibbetson, 28—9.
41. Kaser (n. 9), § 22.II.
42. Kaser (n. 9), § 22.II.2 has suggested that this development may be linked to the increased sophistication of the law (e.g., the development of other areas of law) as well as to changes in Roman legal procedure.
43. Kaser (n. 9), § 19.II.1—2. See also, generally, G. Wesener, ‘Iuspossessionis’, in Festschrift für Max Kaser zum 70. Geburtstag, ed. D. Medicus et al. (Munich, 1976), 159—178.
44. Kaser (n. 9), § 19.II.
45. Kaser (n. 9), § 19.II.2.
46. Diósdi (n. 18), 73; Kaser (n. 9), § 24.IV.1.
47. Diósdi (n. 18), 145—146; Kaser (n. 9), § 25.II.
48. Jolowicz and Nicholas (n. 20), 268; Kaser (n. 9), § 28.I—III.
49. M. Kaser, ‘Altrömisches Eigentum und usucapio’, ZSS 105 (1988): 122—164.
50.size=1 face="Times New Roman"> Some debate remains over the precise origins of these two institutions. Jolowicz and Nicholas (n. 20), 269—270, relying on the views of Mitteis, suggest that they may have existed, albeit de facto rather than in law in the republic. Others suggest a later date for their introduction: see W. W. Buckland, A Textbook of Roman Law from Augustus to Justinian 3rd edn. by P. Stein (Cambridge, 1963), 275—276.
51. Diósdi (n. 18), 149—154.
52. Buckland (n. 50), 675. See, most recently, L. Capogrossi Colognesi, Proprietà e Diritti Reali (Rome, 1999), ch. 4.
53. J. A. Ankum and E. Pool, ‘Rem in bonis meis esse and rem in bonis meam esse: Traces of the Development of Roman Double Ownership', in Birks (n. 9), 5—42; L. Vacca, ‘Il c[osi]. d[etto]. Duplex dominium e l’ actio publiciana’, in La Proprietà e le Proprietà, ed. E. Cortese, (Milan, 1988), 39—74. See also Capogrossi Colognesi (n. 52), ch. 5.
54. Diósdi (n. 18), ch. 4.
55. Jolowicz and Nicholas (n. 20), 261—263 ; Kaser (n. 9),§ 2I.i;L. Capogrossi Colognesi, ‘Dominium e possessio nell’Italia Romana’, in Cortese (n. 53), 141—82. See also G. Giliberti, ‘Dominium caesaris’, Index 24 (1996): 199—228.
56. Kaser (n. 9), §§ 87, 88.
57. Gaius 2.1.
58. F. Schulz, Classical Roman Law (Oxford, 1954), 338—343.
59. Diósdi (n. 18), 131, 135—136; Kaser (n. 9), § 22.II.2. See also G. G. Archi, ‘L’aspetto funzionale del ‘dominium’ romano’, BIDR 61 (1958): 61—79.
60. Kaser (n. 9), § 22.II.2. See also F. Piccinelli, Studi e ricerche intorno alla definizione ‘dominium est ius utendi et abutendi re sua quatenus iuris ratio patitur' (Naples, 1980), an important recent work on this topic.
61. See, e.g., Siculus Flaccus, De CondicionibusAgrorum, specifically on Italic land; the date of the work is unknown but thought to be of the second century AD: B. Campbell, The Writings of the Roman Land Surveyors: Introduction, Text, Translation and Commentary (London, 2000), xxxvii.
62. For an interesting account of the history of the Roman concept of possession in the civilian tradition, see Capogrossi Colognesi (n. 52), ch. 6.
63. Schulz (n. 58), 344-348.
64. Schulz (n. 58), 349-353; Diosdi (n. 18), 139, 143.
65. Kaser (n. 9), § 22.II.2.
66. Schulz (n. 58), 361—366; Kaser (n. 9), § 26.I—III.
67. Diosdi (n. 18), 121.
68. Schulz (n. 58), 368, 378.
69. Kaser (n. 9), § 27.I.3.
70. Kaser (n. 9), § 27.I.3. See also B. Kupisch, In integrum restitutio und vindicatio utilis bei Eigentumsübertragungen im klassischen römischen Recht (Berlin, 1974) for a more extensive account.
71. Kaser (n. 9), § 21.I.2.
72. Kaser (n. 9), § 28.I. On these, see, generally, A. Rodger, Owners and Neighbours in Roman Law (Oxford, 1972), and most recently Capogrossi Colognesi (n. 52), ch. 2.
73.size=1 face="Times New Roman"> Schulz (n. 58), 381—399.
74. Compare P. Garnsey and C. Humfress, The Evolution of the Late Antique World (Cambridge, 2001), 52—82.
75. For an example of this, see I. Wood, ‘Administration, Law and Culture in Merovingian Gaul', in From Roman Provinces to Medieval Kingdoms, ed. T. Noble (London, 2006), 358—375.
76. A systematic comparison of the law with the treatise by Agennius Urbicus, De Controversiis Agrorum (if, as cautiously suggested by Campbell (n. 61), xxxii, it dates from the late fourth/early fifth century AD, it may provide new insights into this period).
77. Thomas (n. 1), 136.
78. E. Levy, West Roman Vulgar Law (Philadelphia, 1951), 19—71, 84—99; Kaser (n. 9), §§ 19.III.1,22.II.3.
79. Levy (n. 78), 127—148, 156—176; Kaser (n. 9), § 24.V.1.
80. Kaser (n. 9), § 26.IV.1.
81. Levy (n. 78), 202—276.
82. Kaser (n. 9), § 88.
83. Kaser (n. 9), § 21.III.
84. See C. Humfress, ‘Law and Legal Practice in the Age of Justinian', in The Cambridge Companion to the Age of Justinian, ed. M. Maas (Cambridge, 2005), 161—184.
85. Kaser (n. 9), § i8.I.3a.
86. lang=EN-US>Kaser (n. 9), § 22.II.4.
87. Kaser (n. 9), §§ 22.II.4, 21.III.1.
88. Kaser (n. 9), § 19.VI.2.
89. Kaser (n. 9), § 19.VI.2.
90. Kaser (n. 9), § 21.II.2.
91. Kaser (n. 9), § 24.V.1—2.
92. Kaser (n. 9), § 24.III, V.
93. Kaser (n. 9), § 24.V.ia. Compare R. Evans-Jones and G. MacCormack, ‘Iusta causa traditionis', in Birks (n. 9), 99—109.
94. Kaser (n. 9), § 25.IV.2a-b.
95. Kaser (n. 9), § 26.I-III.
96. Kaser (n. 9), § 29.I.7.
97. Kaser (n. 9), § 23.III.
98. Kaser (n. 9), § 27.I.
99. See J. Pölönen, ‘The Case for a Sociology of Roman Law', in Law and Sociology, ed. M. Freeman (Oxford, 2005), 398-408.
100. See, e.g., the work ofB. W. Frier andD. Kehoe, ‘Law and Economic Institutions', in The Cambridge Economic History of the Greco-Roman World, ed. W. Scheidel et al. (Cambridge, 2013), 113-143.
style='text-align:left;line-height:normal;page-break-after: avoid'>